Ratio Juris

Issue Number

Latest documents

• Issue Information
• Issue Information
• Interpreting Action with Norms: Responsibility and the Twofold Nature of the Ought‐Implies‐Can Principle

  This article examines the application of the ought‐implies‐can principle in the legal domain, especially in the relationship between obligations and responsibility. It addresses the challenge of cases in which an agent cannot do what is required of her, and yet it seems plausible to say that she has an obligation. To deal with these cases, two parallel distinctions are made: between rules of conduct and rules of imputation, and between doings and things done. It is proposed that these distinctions show that the principle operates in two different but complementary ways: as part of prescriptive relations and as part of responsibility practices.

• The Razian Response to Philosophical Anarchism: A Probe into the Authority‐Autonomy Tension

  This paper juxtaposes two conflicting positions on the justifiability of authority: Robert Wolff's philosophical anarchist argument and a response to Wolff consisting in Joseph Raz's service conception of authority. Following an introduction, I provide a brief exposition of Wolff's claim that authority is incompatible with moral autonomy (Section 2). After presenting the Razian response (Section 3), I consider what implications follow from Raz's service conception of authority assuming it is correct (Section 4). I argue that, even if the service conception successfully meets the anarchist challenge, it does so not by entirely dissolving the tension between authority and autonomy, but through a balancing act whereby one aspect of our autonomy gives way to another aspect of our autonomy. Finally, I consider the service conception of authority itself and point out certain vulnerabilities thereof (Section 5).

• Issue Information
• Punishment Moralism

  In this paper, I try to reconcile the vulgar (normative) definition of punishment with the positivistic (purely descriptive) definition that separates the ethics of punishment from its definition—punishment positivism. I will argue that although the vulgar definition has critical issues, this does not mean that we should stop using normative concepts in the definition of punishment. I will attempt this reconciliation by considering one of the prime arguments in favour of punishment positivism—namely, definitional stop—and show why it doesn't work. I will proceed by presenting a functional argument in favour of what I call punishment moralism: the idea that punishment should be considered as a response to perceived wrongdoing. This definition, while using normative concepts, still remains descriptive. In this way, I hope to be able to solve the problem of both views by combining their insights.

• Issue Information
• Issue Information
• On the Exclusionary Scope of Razian Reasons

  This article attempts to illustrate the originality, depth, and farsightedness of Joseph Raz's conception, especially his idea that legal norms provide us with protected reasons to act, that is, with first‐order reasons to behave as they prescribe, and with second‐order, exclusionary reasons not to act for reasons against what they prescribe. But the article also highlights some aspects that raise doubts in my mind, especially with regard to the scope of these exclusionary reasons. This in two ways: by asking, on the one hand, in what sense and subject to what limits legal norms provide exclusionary reasons for the organs entrusted with applying the law, especially for judges, and on the other hand, how and to what extent legal norms provide citizens with exclusionary reasons. So, in recognizing the strength of the Razian conception, the article also points to some of the difficulties it faces.

• The Public Interest: Clarifying a Legal Concept

  Appeals to the public interest in law are commonplace, but typically made without clarifying what the public interest is and how it can be determined. In law, this has led to ad hoc applications of the public interest and, consequently, to “judicial idiosyncrasy,” posing a threat to legal certainty. This paper aims to remedy these problems by providing much‐needed conceptual clarification. It proposes that something is in the public interest if it increases the opportunities of the members of the public to pursue and realize the (permissible) ends they all share qua equal members of the public.

Featured documents

• The Role and Value of Coherence in Theories of Legal Reasoning
• Positivism, Legal Validity, and the Separation of Law and Morals

  The essay discusses the import of the separability thesis both for legal positivism and for contemporary legal practice. First, the place of the separability thesis in legal positivism will be explored, distinguishing between “standard positivism” and “post‐Hartian positivism.” Then I will consider ...

• The Modern‐Day Cicero: An Alternative Interpretation of the Work of Ronald Dworkin

  Ronald Dworkin is one of the most frequently cited legal philosophers. His work, notably his attack on H. L. A. Hart's positivist theory of law, has received considerable attention, earning him praise as well as trenchant criticism. Instead of discussing the analytical validity of Dworkin's claims, ...

• Two Readings of Bentham's Theory of Meaning as Applied to Moral and Political Discourse

  In this paper, I sketch out and assess two readings of Bentham's theory of meaning, one reductive (Section 2), the other quasi‐pragmatist (Section 3)—both implicating Bentham's ontological and epistemological views. I focus on the way these readings would understand Bentham's analyses of claims in...

• Against Human Rights Skeptics

  The main goal of my text is to generalize Alexy's explicative argument against human rights skeptics in order to minimize the overall room for their escape. This argument tries to show that any attempt to intersubjectively justify the nonexistence of human rights as moral rights necessarily commits ...

• The Common Core between Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law: A Structural Account

  Legal scholars and theorists have recently drawn a more sustained attention to the link between international human rights law (hereafter IHRL) and international criminal law (hereafter ICL). This concerns both positive and more normative accounts of the link. Whether positive or normative, the...

• Legal Interpretation, Conceptual Ethics, and Alternative Legal Concepts

  When legal theorists ask questions about legal interpretation—such as what it fundamentally is, what it aims at, or how it should work—they often do so in ways closely tethered to existing legal practice. For example: they try to understand how an activity legal actors (purportedly) already engage...

• Human Dignity as a Sui Generis Principle

  This paper argues that human dignity is a sui generis status principle whose function lies in unifying our normative orders. More fully, human dignity denotes a basic status to be preserved in any institution or process; it is a principle demanding determination in different contexts; and it has...

• The Tapestry of Reason: Generality, Specificity and Legal Philosophy
• The Syntax of Principles: Genericity as a Logical Distinction between Rules and Principles

  Much has been said about the logical difference between rules and principles, yet few authors have focused on the distinct logical connectives linking the normative conditions of both norms. I intend to demonstrate that principles, unlike rules, are norms whose antecedents are linguistically...